OK, this isn't a rant, but if you're gonna use this thing, be VERY careful. I personally think it's a bad idea, but this isn't my world. Yeah, this kinda system definitely works for music. But for visual arts though? Mehhhhhh....

It reminds me of this "Mr. Krystal" guy who, a while back, asked if he could pay me $20 for the high-res file of . That's how much I sold the prints for at that time! PUHLEEZE. I wanted to reply and say "Sure, for $20,000; and you can do whatever you like with it".

I just wouldn't upload a very high resolution piece of artwork to sell. That's just personally handing someone a paid invitation to come and throw it up on mediafire or piratebay. Or better yet: print it out and going to conventions to sell. That's the problem with digital art compared to original traditional art. You can't really sell it. Making an attempt to monetize digital work easier (other than digitally commissioned work which only goes to the client) is just kinda iffy, in my opinion... I guess its good for tutorials and stuff (I wouldn't charge for tutorials though, I would try to actually even teach paid online lessons at some point. But tutorials? Soon we're going to hit a period in time where giving things just to give would be a worn-out fad...)

Also: A lot of younger, fledgling artists may see this as a "golden opportunity" to make money. Be very careful, or you may run into a situation that may hurt your impression of art in the end.

Nothing wrong with making money, so please don't get me wrong here. It's just that this PCP (not the drug, but that's bad too!) can EASILY open up a bunch of cans of worms in the art community, considering what we already been fighting with (art theft and all).

The system might be good for things like brush presets, at first [definitely not high res prints for exactly your reasons] - but like you mentioned, it's very possible that even something like that could end up on third party sites like mediafire or piratebay.

A lot of good points in the comments here. While a lot of the discussions are largely negative (much of it rightly so), and most people don't seem like they'll use it, there's still an argument to be made in favor of the platform.

Is it a flawed system? Yes. Is it a bad idea to sell high res original work through it? Yes. Too many people are judging the platform on the basis that they must sell all their work through it, and that automatically makes it bad. A smart person will see it for what it is; just one more tool in the toolbox.

It'll never be the main means of distribution for any serious artist. It'll almost always be cheaper and more profitable to go elsewhere and sell, or to sell through your own website. It means more work to do it yourself, but that's the price of cutting out a middleman. Deviantart's biggest advantage is exposure, especially for artists who are well known here, but not on other sites or places like tumblr. For example, an artist can sell work on this platform at a higher price, while linking to their own website in a journal or the artist's comments, directing people to a personal website where said work is 10% cheaper.

As many have already stated, it's not a good replacement for commissions, or for standalone artwork. It is well suited to stock artists, designers, and I liked the suggestion about selling 3d models. Again, too many people arguing about what it's bad for, and very few people taking the time to figure out how to make it work for them. Calendars, comics, small artbooks. Is art theft and the potential for getting ripped off real? Always. It's unavoidable, and it's up to the artist to find the best way to mitigate loss of profits while still supplying a product to people who are willing to buy it.

In the end, the dA platform is just one more option available to us. It's not replacing the existing model for how people sell art online, and it's not exactly innovative. But it IS yet one more option available to us as artists, and the more choices and avenues we have to work with, the better the future is for artists striving to make a living. I advise everyone to do some research, look at the possibilities, and find a way to make this new tool work for you.

thank goodness!!! every one has said nothing but the negative and it drives me nuts!!! you don't have to use it!!! i just don't see why people are putting up in there journals things like "don't you dare us it" "this is stupid" (not that this person did that)"what is dA thinking" "there goes dA" i mean most of the people hadn't even tried it when they started to complain.. of course it's not for any serious artist! they have their own tools by now, but like you said, for the newbies and others just joining in the commission stages this is actually quite great for us!

i've used this system MANY times now and i actually love it quite a bit. the wait time is a tiny bit ridiculous, but compared to how no one was commissioning me before, i'd say this is a great turn around :3 it helps put me on the map so i can evolve and get more exposure while still getting the profits i deserve ^^

any who.. thank you for finding the time to talk about BOTH sides, you have no idea how much that made my day! >w<

When I read about it, comments were disabled. It was probably because your opinion mirrors that of most sensible-minded digital artists. In the end, it's still all about dA's points and there are easier, more effective and more trustworthy ways to market your content for real money in other places online. But then again, maybe this isn't made for those of us who illustrate, and rather for those people who create resources like stock photos, how-to books/tutorials, 3D models and what not. More power to 'em.

I didn't really pay much mind to it at all. (`-`) I mean, I looked it over, couldn't be bothered to read it all... probably for a good reason. XD I'm not gonna knock anyone who tries it. Heck, it might even get people exposed to a wider audience... but I'd rather just do regular commissions and get all the money I ask for up front.

Yeah... my thoughts exactly. I like the idea of selling premium content, but I paused at the suggestion of selling hi-res files and PSDs (and frankly any new service dA offers prompts a side-eye from me). o__o That's pretty much giving my work away. For the type of work I do/offer right now, premium content won't benefit me. I'd like to maybe brainstorm ways to use this service *without* giving away my IPs cheaply, but so far I got nothin'.

the only thing i can see this kind of working for is stuff like wallpaper/customization packs and stock images or something. but that still doesn't stop people from sharing for free afterward. sure you have a license agreement the buyer needs to sign, but if you actually want to stop someone who's been sharing it you'd have to get lawyers involved and stuff?? which isn't fun

Technically, iTunes shouldn't work. Hell, I still buy physical releases, what does that make me? I think this system is good for amateur artists if it encourages them to invest more in their work. There are certain amateur artists that I would be willing to support in this manner, so I am all for it.

I think it's a good idea, I live in France and buying a print is clearly IMPOSSIBLE, it would be like paying 10 times the price of the print with a chance of broken stuff of no stuff at all due to the lame printing system... Buying a full art is cool, it only depends on how much you want to win with something anyway, I know some do them for free (like me cause I don't earn money with my work) but for people who want to live only with that, yeah, that's bad~

Yeah PCP is pretty sketchy now. So many things can go wrong. Plus that 20% tax and two week wait is kind of a killer. Especially when it takes just a few minutes longer to note/email someone and give them real money instantly. Hopefully they'll iron out the kinks and add more features to make things more balanced, or set up some kind of legitimacy screening to prevent theft, etc. It HAS potential to be useful.But then again, this is Deviantart...

I think I'll stick to my commissions and learn a little bit more about digital watermarking to detour people from copying my work. This screams an all new form of theft down the road. Low-res file uploads from here on out.

For selling visual art, I think this is more for people who want to sell things like buttons, unused logos, bases, templates, etc. No smart person would sell a high-res version of art that they are selling as prints.

It has its uses I think. I'm not sure that selling the high res version of an image — except maybe a wallpaper I guess — is really a good use for such a system anyway. It could be a good way for stock artists and resource makers to make money. It's also got potential for writers and comic makers if used properly.

Of course there will be people who try to sell low quality work that no one wants, but that's commonplace here already. I've lost count of the amount of badly photographed pencil drawings I've seen available as prints.

Yeah the system bothers me too. Not only for the reasons you mentioned (which I did think of) which if I were an artist I'd be concerned, and as a commissioner I'm concerned. I've had people sweep in and steal my character designs and other peoples art by snagging something I've commissioned in the past and running off with it as theirs. In fact I think that happened with my Victoria Commission I got from you last year.

The other thing that bothers me is people who release wallpapers, can now slap ridiculous price tags on things. Saw someone yesterday (who is normally a great artist) who was 'testing' the system, who threw up two stick figures with the sun in the background and a flare effect on the sun for 500. I don't mind paying for a true high res image of a piece of art, I don't mind paying for a print either, but the price needs to be reasonable for the quality and size of the image. I think we're gonna see some artists tagging low-mid rez image options with prices of assclown proportions soon because this system isn't regulated and if ever anything prevailed in all of human nature, it's greed.

That just doesn't seem like a good idea any way you look at it. A lot of the free stock is going to become paid stock, a lot of previous art theft is going to be sold here, and considering how insecure DA is towards art theft, I have a feeling it won't go as they plan for the first several months either.Have to say I agree with artisticlibido , it's going to become a giant torrent site since they already can't police all of the art theft here...

Meh. I take this sort of thing as a case-by-case. There are certain things I feel comfortable selling (or giving away as donor gifts) simply because I don't care too much about the work, but I'm not sure I'm sold on this whole thing. Sure, it works for designers who want to sell stuff like icons and packs of web graphics. But as for selling high-res copies of my original art/characters? I'm not so sure.

My biggest concern is that this is going to look like a big, shiny money machine to a lot of inexperienced artists, and they're going to get their asses burned. "Live and learn" doesn't quite cut it here, either.

You're absolutely right. At first I was like, "What's Premium Content Platform? The latest Call of Modern Battlefield DLC?" Then I checked the notices... how stupid is that? SELLING hi-res files? Everything will just end on big files on a torrent site. Things like that make me want to take out my acrylics and start painting on actual paper again.

I definitely don't think that's what DA was going for, i hope artists don't think that's what they meant o_o. The best uses I've seen for it so far is stock photos, brush packs and actions, resource type items.

Personally, even if my sub-par art was better, I wouldn't use this. But I do think that many of the free stock and brush pack creators are going to see this as an opportunity to sell their work. Not only that but when they pull it out to where everyone can use it, there will be that problem of stolen art being sold. So, I don't really think it's a good idea, but I guess it's just dA trying to get their cut of people selling commissions through their website.

yeah i read this announcement in a just-woke-up haze and could smell the BS. now if they included a means of selling a license, then mayyyybe. but honestly, if i'm doing that kind of business, it's going to be dealt with off DA.

Y'know, that hadn't even crossed my mind.I've been reading a lot of people bitchin about the 20% thing that I didn't even think of the repercussions of someone owning the full digital download and doing whatever with it.

Very solid point.

When I first heard about this, my initial thought was that it was intended for resources. Like custom brushes, stock textures, and things of that nature. I don't understand what this would do for commission or print selling artists. It just kinda adds a middle man no one asked for.